Hotel CCTV Video of 9/11 Pentagon Explosion... And NO Plane!

And emotions and families of victims have nothing to do with what was being discussed, so keep your emotions to yourself when it comes to conspiracy
research and let others discuss what they want without pointing out the weeping families and the humanity of it all.

And I would put myself in danger for my fellow human, and have done so before.

Why? When people what to fill a computer screen up with total bull crap because they are bored with their lives? You know what, this subject should
never be approached without the human element considered. Is there something clinical about death and distruction to you that we should leave emotion
out of this? And lastly, I am entirely entitled to my opinions just as you are. Kiss kiss. To put a totally feminine bent on the thing. I'd tie a
pink bow on here if I could.

This is the false premise that results in cluesforum claiming that victims never existed and things like satellites are not real.

It's absolute nonsense, and the only evidence you've shown to back up your claim should not convince a five year old. How do you even propose that
these videos were faked in 2001? Have you seen movie CGI? You realise how many thousands of man hours every single scene takes up? To fake videos on
this scale would need tens of thousands of employees for a good couple of years. The cost would be insane, yet cluesforum would have you believe that
the vast majority of photos and videos on the internet are fake based on absolutely no experience nor knowledge.

There are lots and lots of personal videos of that day that were not shot by professionals. People were filming from their balconies and apartment
windows. Joe Blow who lives in an apartment on Varrick Street down the block from the towers somehow had his video altered too? I must plead for a
break here.

Thanks for pointing out. After watching this vid I would also say it's a semi.

Not the plane in any case.

So the vid is useless as the description said, but they also noted some points, don't know if this was posted already,,

1) WHY does the image move up and down ? This is a behaviour normally associated with de-interlaced video. Why would we be given a deinterlaced
version of the footage ? 2) Why does the timer not always update on frame image changes, but instead updates erratically indicating that the timer was
either overlaid, or that the framerate has been modified ? 3) Why do some frames show double-frame ghosting ? (You'll have to grab a copy of the clip
and frame-inspect until I upload a video highlighting the detail) Why would a frame grabbing CCTV camera produce a double exposure frame ? 4) The
timer is seen to jump backwards a minute momentarily during the clip. Why would a hardware overlaid timer exhibit such a random 'glitch' ? 5) Why does
the image appear to 'freeze' on several occasions even though the timer still runs ? 6) etc...find a few more issues and post them as comments. For
analysing the Pentagon impact it's next to useless video, but still has many anomolies. Why do we not have the 'original' footage ? It's doubtful the
original would show anything of any further interest anyway...

Right. No one was home that day. No one lives in NY its only businesses right? Wrong. SOHO is fully residential and not but a few blocks away from
the trade center. Lots of people , ordinary people live there. There were thousands of witnesses. You can see the crowds looking up when the second
plane hits. What are they looking at? Why the looks of horror on their faces? They're watching a roadrunner cartoon? Did that bird hit the tower?
Was there any wreckage at all bearing the name Acme?

Originally posted by MRuss
If there was a plane, why aren't there any videos of it like there were for the Twin Towers?

Because the two planes that hit the towers hit 1000ft up in the middle of one of the busiest cities in the world. The one at The Pentagon hit a ground
level office building surrounded primarily by roads and a cemetary. There are only two videos of the first impact, neither of high quality. Ask
yourself why that is.

Why is the proof always this unbelievably fuzzy, distorted, grainy video that basically show nothing?

Because cameras were mostly VHS in 2001.

I'll believe the Pentagon was hit by an airliner when someone can prove it to me: ie: REAL debris, video, etc.

Until then, I'll just assume our government is lying---because that would be no surprise.

Read Firefight - Inside the battle to save The Pentagon. It contains first hand accounts of finding bodies of plane passengers still strapped in. You
could also ask how things like wedding rings were found if there were no passengers of the plane.

Assuming everyone's lying to you might make you feel good, but it's not a very good way to discern truth.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I say inside job with 99% certainity but the no plane theory holds water only for the pentagon. I believe it was a predator drone firing some kind of
cruise missle. Cruise missles have fins. The predator drone is pretty big and can somewhat relate to a small or medium plane.

edit on
28/11/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

The Predator is way too small to be mistaken for a medium plane, and can't carry any kind of cruise missile. Cruise missiles are launched from
bombers, like the B-1 or B-52. The Tomahawk, which is the primary cruise missile in the US inventory is 18 feet long, and weighs 2650 lbs (20 feet
and 3200 with a booster). The Predator is 27 feet long, and capable of carrying a 300 lb external payload and 450 lbs internally. The Reaper, is 36
feet, and can carry 3600 lbs total weight. However, the wings aren't stressed to carry something almost as long as the airframe, and with almost
it's entire carrying capacity on one wing.

The AGM-86 runs into the same problem. It's almost 21 feet long, and weighs in at 3150 lbs.

There aren't any UAVs that are currently employed that are big enough to deploy a cruise missile. It would have to be at least half the size of a
B-2 at minimum.

And let's not have the usual "Well the military tech is years ahead of where we think it is" argument. That seems to be a standard excuse for
explaining away inconvenient facts.

I don't have to prove anything. The government should prove a passenger airliner actually struck the pentagon with clear footage! Where is it? And
why was private cctv from nearby shops confiscated by the feds? Does the government have something to hide? Yeah, I think so!

There are lots and lots of personal videos of that day that were not shot by professionals. People were filming from their balconies and apartment
windows. Joe Blow who lives in an apartment on Varrick Street down the block from the towers somehow had his video altered too? I must plead for a
break here.

I never claimed "no plane" theory for nyc. Woodspirit is the one claiming so. Maybe you should ask him!

I am claiming "no plane" theory for the pentagon and I explained why anywhere between 5 to 10 times already.

That is the one sticking point no one has ever fully explained. I'd like to know the answer to that, too.

Another thing that is confusing to those of us who were in the past on the fence about this---is why so many differing stories as to what hit?

If a tractor trailor spins out on the road, most every witness will at least collaborate that it was a tractor trailer. They may disagree about whose
fault it was,etc. but no one disputes the tractor trailor.

Originally posted by MRuss
If it was indeed a plane, then bingo. All stories would collaborate.

The fact that they don't makes the whole story difficult to believe.

edit on 28-11-2012 by MRuss because: (no reason given)

Surely it's the exact opposite? We know eyewitnesses are unreliable and often give massively different stories. On the other hand, a dictated agenda
is exact, and indeed detecting if someone has been 'coached' is listening for repeated statements made verbatim.

How does a massive confusion and different eye witness reports not sound like an actual panicing emergency? Sounds like one to me!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.